If it's just a 2 exposure shoot one for sky and one for foreground, you don't do HDR, you just blend the sky in manually using layers and masks. It all looks 100% natural, no tone mapping to go awry. However, you can get natural look with real HDR if you are careful and practice with the software.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If it's just a 2 exposure shoot one for sky and one for foreground, you don't do HDR, you just blend the sky in manually using layers and masks. It all looks 100% natural, no tone mapping to go awry. However, you can get natural look with real HDR if you are careful and practice with the software.
Means I can go for the 17mm and don't use NDs. Doing the rest in PP filter?
While you can blend in post there are several filter effects that need to be done the 'old fashion' way.
1. CP to cut reflections - especially useful for shots with water and/or windows. Its usefulness to 'darken' skies on a 17mm is poor due to the nature of the effect.
2. An ND filter to allow slower shutter speeds to 'smooth' moving water. While the desirability of this sort of effect is debatable ( some people do not like it ), I suspect you may be able to reproduce it in post - it is real simple to do at exposure time.
3. A really strong ND ( 8-10 stop ) to 'remove' moving subjects from a scene. I guess you can clone them out but if you have several frames to do that will be time consuming compared to doing it at capture.
So - if these effects are important to you ( they are to me ) then the lack of filter on the 17 is very significant. I have the Mk I version of the 24 TS-E but am saving for either the 17 or 24 TS-E mk II - but I am waiting to see if there is a filter fix for the 17.
Waterboiler, as you have the 24TSE and as I understand you are doing landscape why do you want to change to the 17TSE?? Let's keep the filter problem aside.
For years I found a 24 wide enough but of late I find a lot of my favorite shots are wider - more like 20 down. Quite a few times I would have liked a shiftable 20ish. I tend to like shooting rock formations - think Monument Valley - the ability to get up close with a 17 then shift to keep perspective straight is what I am looking for. I find I use shift more often than tilt - mostly for perspective correction.
I also like to do interior architecture when I travel. I think the 17 would really shine there.
As I see it, the 24TS II has many more practical advantages over the 17TS. It can easily take filters, it is cheaper, it is lighter, it does not have a humongous protruding front element and it has a lens hood. Thus, if you are 100% certain that it would fit 100% of your wide TS shots it is easily recommended.
The 17TS has only one advantage, but it is a huge one. It is wider, much wider. Thus, you can easily get from 17TS PoV to 24TS PoV by either cropping or adding a 1.4X TC. You can't do it the other way around. Thus, in that regard, it is the more practical one.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Thus, you can easily get from 17TS PoV to 24TS PoV by either cropping or adding a 1.4X TC. You can't do it the other way around. Thus, in that regard, it is the more practical one.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
There is another way. Use on a FF for 17mm and on a crop body you get a 27mm.
